View Single Post
Old 07-22-2017, 06:00 PM   #5
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Admin Rank question

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor View Post
The powers of a British monarch vary according to time period and the political theory and personalities involved. For instance in the eighteenth century a British monarch was very much like a US President in executive role whereas in modern times, a monarch is mostly clerical, literally or figurative(he or she takes on the ceremonial functions of government including any religious ones becoming like an Archon Basilus). This separation of ceremony from concrete is a common organizational technique and has many advantages, although it does have the disadvantage from the monarchs point of view that being an icon is a hard thing to live up to.
I believe the technical term for that role is "head of state" as opposed to "head of government."

Quote:
A prime minister where the monarch has actual authority would probably be a professional statesman appointed either by the monarch or the parliament-moot-estates to council him on the details someone born to the purple can't be trusted to have as well as someone who did politics for a living. He would have to have Savoire-Faire just to start with to be able to work with his master.
Other arrangements are possible. It appears that under the ancien régime, in France, the legislative power was held by the roi, the executive power by ministers who reported to him, and the judicial power by the parlements. There were situations like the roi decreeing a law, and the parlement refusing to register it as valid, and in some cases the roi would stage what amounted to a sit-in until parlement surrendered.

And then there was Louis XIV, who for much of his life was his own prime minister, holding both legislative and executive powers.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is offline   Reply With Quote